The judges said invalidating the plan would be “spawning chaos rather than confidence in the election process.”

The plaintiffs — eight Hawaii voters, including state Rep. Mark Takai — had argued the plan is unconstitutional and discriminatory because it removed more than 100,000 military personnel, their dependents and out-of-state university students from political district population totals. Four of the plaintiffs are military personnel or veterans.

“Although we recognize that the right to representation is fundamental, ‘a federal court cannot lightly interfere with or enjoin a state election,'” the order said, citing a 2003 California case.

U.S. District Judges J. Michael Seabright and Leslie Kobayashi and U.S. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown of San Diego said “the equities and public interest tip overwhelmingly in (Reapportionment) Commission’s favor.”

The order said the plaintiffs did “not show that Hawaii attempted to single out non-resident servicemembers, servicemember dependents, or non-resident students for any reason other than their lack of permanent residency. … The record shows that the means Hawaii chose to achieve the result were rational and, even using the standard urged by (plaintiffs), pass close constitutional scrutiny.”

The judges said deciding which population base states should use is more a political decision, not one that courts should determine.

“In recent years, various courts have considered whether the citizen population is an acceptable districting basis and have held that under (Burns v. Richardson), the matter is a political question best left to states,” the order said. “It is hardly up to us to meddle in a state choice with which the Supreme Court as well as circuit courts have deemed ‘no constitutionally founded reason to interfere.'”

The court agreed with arguments made by state Deputy Attorney General Brian Aburano, who is defending the Office of Elections and the Reapportionment Commission. Aburano said invalidating the existing plan would “cause a chaotic scene.”

Aburano told the court at a hearing Friday that shifting gears would delay the primary election possibly until October, or force the state to hold two primary elections — one for federal races, which are not impacted by the lawsuit, and another primary for state and county elections once a new redistricting plan is implemented.

“Although (plaintiffs’) counsel opined at the hearing that the task would be ‘mission difficult, not mission impossible,’ we disagree,” the judges said. “The above chronology leaves little doubt that, at this late date, there is no room for judicial intervention without significantly interrupting the election process.

“Spawning chaos rather than confidence in the election process is a result we cannot endorse. Absent compelling evidence that the election will not be interrupted, we find that the equities and public interest weigh decisively against granting the preliminary injunction.”

In addition to claiming that the reapportionment plan disenfranchises military personnel, the plaintiffs argued the plan fails to apportion populations of each district equally across the state. Robert Thomas, attorney for the plaintiffs, acknowledged in court that so-called “canoe districts” — a single district covering portions of more than one island — would be the only way to address that.

Tuesday’s order noted this issue is not new.

“The issue has been ‘ever present in [Hawaii’s] reapportionment cases.’ And the parties appear to agree that the choice is straightforward: Either keep Kauai as a single district (but cause large deviations) or require canoe districts (to balance populations equally),” the order said.

But, the judges said they aren’t evaluating that challenge at this point. Granting a preliminary injunction for that challenge, the judges said, would require the commission to start from scratch to create canoe districts and re-balance populations.

Thomas had admitted at Friday’s hearing that it’s too late to implement a new plan for this year’s elections.

The Reapportionment Commission initially came up with a plan in September that removed about 16,500 military and college students because they weren’t “permanent” residents, as called for in the state constitution.

Thomas has said that plan, as well as an August 2011 plan, could be acceptable alternatives to the existing plan.

The September plan was challenged in two separate lawsuits for including too many non-resident military and their families as part of the state’s population. Those suits contended that counting these populations had cost the Big Island an additional Senate seat it would otherwise gain due to population growth.

When the commission reconvened to draw up new plans, it removed more than 100,000 active-duty military and dependents and out-of-state college students, a change that shifted a Senate seat from Oahu to the Big Island.

]]>Hawaii voters could be heading to the primary election polls twice this year if federal judges side with plaintiffs challenging the state’s redistricting plan.

A three-judge panel heard arguments Friday morning in U.S. District Court in Honolulu on a preliminary injunction that seeks to toss out the political boundaries approved in March by the Reapportionment Commission.

The motion is before U.S. District Judges J. Michael Seabright and Leslie Kobayashi, and U.S. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown of San Diego. The court is expected to issue a decision soon.

The plaintiffs — six Hawaii voters, including state Rep. Mark Takai — argue the plan is unconstitutional and discriminatory because it removed more than 100,000 military personnel, their dependents and out-of-state university students from political district population totals. Four of the six plaintiffs are military personnel or veterans.

Hawaii’s primary election is set for Aug. 11, and the state Office of Elections says it’s too late to start over [pdf]. Candidates have until June 5 to file to run for office.

Invalidating the existing plan would “cause a chaotic scene,” according to state Deputy Attorney General Brian Aburano, who is defending the Office of Elections and the Reapportionment Commission in the legal challenge.

He said implementing a new redistricting plan — even using an alternative plan that’s already drawn up — would delay the primary election by several months. Another possibility, Aburano said, would be to hold dual primary elections.

“It means the primary is either going to have to be delayed, or, more likely, we would have to have dual primaries,” he said in court.

He noted one primary election would be held for federal races, which are not impacted by the lawsuit, and another primary for state and county elections once a new redistricting plan is implemented.

“It’s next to impossible to have this election in a timely manner,” he said.

Thomas stressed that Friday’s hearing was only for the preliminary injunction. If the motion is denied, the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the plan would proceed to trial, he said.

At times, things didn’t look like they were going well for the plaintiffs.

The judges appeared to be confused at some of Thomas’ arguments, which often got technical. For example, he argued that when the state adopts an alternative population base for reapportionment, the state has an obligation to say how that alternative stacks up to a constitutionally permissible population base.

Seabright said re-doing the redistricting process would “throw the (election) system into chaos — something this court won’t do,” noting that it would “undermine the integrity of the process.”

In addition to claiming that the reapportionment plan disenfranchises military personnel, Thomas said the plan fails to apportion populations of each district equally across the state. He acknowledged that so-called “canoe districts” — a single district covering portions of more than one island — would be the only way to address that.

The Reapportionment Commission initially came up with a plan in September that removed about 16,500 military and college students because they weren’t “permanent” residents, as called for in the state constitution.

Thomas has said that plan, as well as an August 2011 plan, could be acceptable alternatives to the existing plan.

The September plan was challenged in two separate lawsuits for including too many non-resident military and their families as part of the state’s population. Those suits contended that counting these populations had cost the Big Island an additional Senate seat it would otherwise gain due to population growth.

When the commission reconvened to draw up new plans, it removed more than 100,000 active-duty military and dependents and out-of-state college students, a change that shifted a Senate seat from Oahu to the Big Island.

“By barring military, their families, and students from representation in the legislature, Hawaii has insured they are represented nowhere: Because they are counted by the Census only as usual residents of Hawaii, they are not counted anywhere else,” the preliminary injunction motion said.

]]>Hawaii County Council Candidates Tapping Into Public Financinghttps://www.civilbeat.org/2012/05/15872-hawaii-county-council-candidates-tapping-into-public-financing/
Fri, 18 May 2012 01:05:41 +0000Seven Big Island candidates have received $145,000 for their primary campaigns.

The program was seen as way to help eliminate the influence of outside money in elections. The money comes through the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund, which is filled by taxpayers who check off on their state income tax filings to have $3 go to the fund.

“The program is basically designed, in my opinion, to promote clean elections so that people running in the same district have an equal playing field as far as access to funds,” said Maile David, a candidate running for District 6, who has received more than $41,000 in public funds for the upcoming Aug. 11 primary. “I don’t think I could have raised that amount of money on my own. … It’s hard enough running a campaign, and when you have to ask your supporters for money when times are really tough, I’m just happy that I do have this funding.”

Once a candidate opts in to the program, he or she needs to raise 200 individual $5 contributions from registered voters in their district. When that’s achieved and verified by the state Campaign Spending Commission, the candidate receives a so-called base amount.

The remaining five candidates who applied have until June 5 to raise their 200 contributions.

The base amount of funding varies for each of the council’s nine districts. It’s calculated by averaging how much the winner in each district spent in the previous two county council elections, less 10 percent. For example, this election, the base amount for District 1 is $1,226; for District 6 it’s $41,573. A $300,000 cap is in place for each election.

A participating candidate cannot accept additional contributions after receiving the base public funding. They are allowed to raise up to $3,000 in “seed money” before opting into the program.

Here are the seven candidates who have received public funds so far:

Candidate

District

Primary Base

J Yoshimoto

2

$14,559

Greggor Ilagan

4

$16,320

James Weatherford

4

$16,320

Maile David

6

$41,573

Brenda Ford

6

$41,573

Karen Eoff

8

$3,684.56

Margaret Wille

9

$11,427.46

David said she plans to spend the funds on efforts to get out into her community.

“I anticipate a lot of it will get spent through advertising — radio and newspaper — doing community talk-stories and things like that,” she said. “My district is a big district, running from South Kona to the Volcano area, so that $41,000 is going to be spent basically on going out in to the district and meeting people.”

In the 2010 election, a total of 16 Hawaii County Council candidates applied to participate in the pilot. Eight candidates received about $147,700 total in base funds for that year’s primary.

Previously, the pilot program had a second piece to it. In addition to the base amount, a participating candidate could previously receive what’s known as “equalizing funds” if he or she is outspent by an opponent who does not participate in the public funds program. A candidate could get a maximum up to their original base amount.

That part of the program has been struck down by a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision on a similar Arizona law, according to Tony Baldomero, associate director of the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission.

The high court ruled that “Arizona’s matching funds scheme substantially burdens protected political speech without serving a compelling state interest and therefore violates the First Amendment.”

The Big Island pilot program is separate from the statewide partial public funding program, which first launched in 1980. That program, which also is funded through the tax return check-off, is meant to encourage so-called grassroots campaigning by using public money to match dollar for dollar contributions by Hawaii residents of $100 or less.

So far this election, just one candidate has received money through that program. Don Guzman, who’s running for the Maui County Council residency seat of Kahului, has received $6,335 for the primary election.

The embattled Wahiawa elderly care center at the heart of a federal investigation for alleged misuse of $7.9 million in federal grants has been awarded money from the Hawaii Legislature.

ORI Anuenue Hale is listed as one of 40 recipients in line to receive coveted grants-in-aid from the state totaling $11 million. The taxpayer-funded grants for “essential” public health, welfare and education services await final approval from Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

ORI Anuenue Hale is set to receive $288,060 — the full amount it requested from the state for its Central Oahu day-care center that serves elderly and disabled people. Other grant recipients include the Hawaii Meth Project, Wahiawa General Hospital, the Kalihi-Palama Health Center and the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii.

ORI requested the money for operations, noting on its application that the center is not receiving any state, federal or county funding at the time. The $288,060 state grant would add to $10,000 from “local charities requests” and $1,940 in “other in-kind resources” to fill out a $300,000 operating budget, according to ORI’s application.

The award to ORI is noteworthy in light of an ongoing federal investigation of the nonprofit’s use of federal grants.

The federal government last June notified Honolulu officials that they might have to return $7.9 million if the city failed to act on possible misuse of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development grant money.

The federal government found ORI was not in compliance with several of the rules associated with accepting the grant money. HUD called the nonprofit’s use of federal monies “unacceptable.”

As recently as this year, Honolulu officials said they were still working with the center to meet federal grant requirements so that the city could avoid repaying the HUD funds that ORI received over a 10-year period.

ORI abandoned plans to seek continued Community Development Block Grants through the city, according to a letter obtained by Civil Beat. The nonprofit also turned down almost $200,000 that had been allocated to it last year, according to HUD.

Legislators touted their budgeting skills in being able to fund the $11 million in grants. Sen. David Ige, chairman of the committee on Ways and Means, said on the Senate floor on the last day of the session that lawmakers were able to pay for some much-needed nonprofit support services, “which we haven’t been able to do for many, many years.”

Updated: Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland, chairwoman of the committee on Human Services, defended the grant money to ORI despite the federal probe. Chun Oakland said ORI previously received a state grant-in-aid to help cover costs to build its Wahiawa facilities.

“I truly have no problem supporting this particular organization,” Chun Oakland said. “They’ve gone above and beyond the expectations. The families being served by ORI, they are very happy with what Susanna is doing. She has been an excellent partner in helping people with disabilities. … I don’t agree with what HUD is doing. I’m very disappointed that they’re having these kinds of problems with the feds.”

Much of the state grant-in-aid — $130,204 — would be used to pay for salaries and benefits for four employees, according to ORI’s application. Other expenses include utilities, custodial and security services, administrative support and grounds maintenance.

ORI President and CEO Susanna Cheung did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

That figure represents the gap between the pension benefits promised to Hawaii’s public workers and the money set aside to pay for them. The ERS has approximately 111,000 members, including 65,000 active employees statewide.

“To get this through was really a good accomplishment for us from a liability standpoint,” ERS Administrator Wes Machida said. “It helps us curtail the liability going forward.”

The elimination of overtime for pension purposes goes further than what the ERS board of trustees had been lobbying for during the session. The board had pushed for a cap on how much overtime could count toward pensions.

The controversial move to eliminate overtime for new hires — which labor unions strongly opposed — is awaiting final approval by Gov. Neil Abercrombie.

It targets the practice known as spiking, where employees “spike” their pay through things like overtime in the years just before retirement to help boost their pension benefits. Bonuses and most other added compensation also won’t be counted for new hires.

Employers On the Hook

“Employers and employees contribute to the ERS amounts equal to a percentage of compensation; however, when employees’ compensations are spiked just prior to retirement, pension benefits are enhanced beyond a rate of what either the employer or employee have contributed to the ERS,” state Budget and Finance Director Kalbert Young testified in support of the bill.

Legislators also approved House Bill 2487, which would require employers — be it the state or the counties — to pay for any unfunded portion of an employee’s spiked pension. A complex formula would be used to determine whether an employee’s compensation has been spiked in the years just before retirement.

It’s unclear how much the state and counties would be liable for, but in 2010, pension spiking accounted for $12.3 million in unfunded liabilities statewide, according to the ERS.

Because overtime work must be approved by employers, the measure was seen as a way to force departments to rein in excessive overtime costs.

To illustrate, a city audit of Honolulu’s Emergency Medical Services Division uncovered excessive overtime, where, in some cases, workers earned between 200 percent and 350 percent of their regular salaries in overtime.

An ERS study found 10 of the emergency services employees are expected to increase the system’s unfunded liability by about $4 million. Under HB 2487, the employer would be on the hook for the unfunded portion.

Public worker unions strongly opposed both bills, including the State of Hawaii Police Officers Union, University of Hawaii Professional Assembly, Hawaii Government Employees Association and United Public Workers union. Union leaders argued the changes would make public service less attractive and negatively impact recruiting efforts.

The Honolulu Police Department, Honolulu Fire Department and Maui Department of Fire & Public Safety also opposed the measure. The City and County of Honolulu’s budget office said it had serious concerns about the bill.

Priority Bills for Abercrombie

Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said the two bills were priority measures for the administration. She said the governor is reviewing the final versions of the measures to ensure they still align with the original intent.

Abercrombie had touted the measures in a legislative wrap-up, saying: “Prospectively, these bills will help to curb the future incursion of additional liability while not affecting current employees and their accrued rights and benefit,” the governor said in a statement.

Nationally, at least 14 states have revamped their pension systems in the past five years to prevent employees from “spiking” their pay to pad retirement benefits.

If approved, Hawaii’s reforms will kick in on July 1 — the same time new pension benefit rules approved last year take effect.

Lawmakers last year, at the urging of the ERS, approved legislation that will scale down benefits for new hires. Those hired after June 30 will have to work longer to earn retirement benefits, chip in more toward their plans and receive smaller pensions compared to existing employees.

]]>The Hawaii Supreme Court has affirmed that a Native Hawaiian practitioner violated state park rules by setting up residence in a closed area of Kalalau Valley, despite his defense that he had a constitutional right to live there as a caretaker.

Lloyd “Ikaika” Pratt had been cited three different times in 2004 for being in the valley in violation of state rules. He argued that his activities in Kauai’s Na Pali Coast State Park were protected as traditional and customary Native Hawaiian practices.

The state constitution says the state “shall protect all rights, customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by ahupuaa tenants who are descendants of Native Hawaiians … subject to the right of the state to regulate such rights.”

Pratt, who said he is 75 percent Hawaiian, testified he is a kahu, a healer, and responsible for Kalalau Valley because his ancestors are buried there.

A trial court rejected Pratt’s argument. He appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals rejected the appeal and upheld the lower court’s ruling. The Hawaii Supreme Court agreed last year to hear the case.

The high court noted that when Native Hawaiians use their culture as a defense against criminal charges, the court needs to weigh the interests of the practitioner with those of the state’s interests in regulating the conduct.

In its 3-2 opinion, the high court found the state’s right outweighed Pratt’s rights, noting “the privilege afforded for Native Hawaiian practices, as expressed in our State constitution and statute, is not absolute.” The opinion was issued by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald and associate justices Paula A. Nakayama and James E. Duffy Jr.

“The balancing of interests weighs in favor of permitting the park to regulate Pratt’s activity, his argument of privilege notwithstanding,” the opinion says.

The high court said that once a criminal defendant satisfies the three-prong test established in State v. Hanapi (1998), “there remains a balancing test before the defendant’s assertion of the native Hawaiian privilege negates any possible criminal conviction.”

The Hanapi case — in which Alapai Hanapi was convicted of trespassing for entering his neighbor’s land — established a three-prong test for criminal defendants who say they should be protected by the constitutional promise to preserve the Native Hawaiian culture. The prosecution in Pratt’s case conceded that Pratt met all three prongs — being Native Hawaiian, exercising customary and traditional rights and doing so on undeveloped state land.

In applying the “balancing test,” on one hand, the high court said the state has a right to protect the valley from overuse of a limited resource. On the other hand, Pratt has a strong interest in visiting Kalalau Valley.

But, the court said, Pratt’s actions went beyond stewardship. He testified that he established a residence there and cleared entire areas to replant them with other species. “He undertook this work without consultation with the (Department of Land and Natural Resources), and without an effort to comply with the DLNR’s permit requirements,” the opinion said. “Pratt did not show any attempts to engage in his native Hawaiian practice within the limits of state law.”

The court said it is not preventing Pratt from future visits to Kalalau Valley. “Pratt may go and stay overnight whenever he obtains the proper permit. He may also apply to the curatorship program to work together with the DLNR to take care of the heiau in the Kalalau Valley,” the court said.

Associate Justice Simeon R. Acoba Jr. dissented, in part, joined by Sabrina S. McKenna. Acoba contended that the Hanapi test is a better measure than the so-called “totality of circumstances” test used.

He said introducing that concept when the Hanapi test is already established “renders the Hanapi test imprecise and invites consideration of matters beyond the benchmarks.”

Pratt’s attorney, Dan Hempey, said his client will be filing a motion for reconsideration regarding the issue of lenity. Under the rule of lenity, any ambiguity is interpreted to favor the defendant.

]]>Editor’s Note:This is the first in an occasional series of reports on campaign finance.

With Hawaii’s Aug. 11 primary election three months away, several candidates in state and local races have stockpiled sizable campaign war chests, according to a Civil Beat analysis of campaign finance data.

Four candidates running for office this year have raised at least $200,000, with one state senator amassing more than $365,000 as of Dec. 31, the most recent reporting period. Three other candidates, running in the 2014 elections, have also raised at least $200,000.

Topping the list is Gov. Neil Abercrombie, who had squirreled $809,500 as of his last filing. The next campaign finance reports are due July 31, covering the period from Jan. 1 through June 30.

The governor’s post is not up for reelection until 2014. To put Abercrombie’s total in context, the governor raised $4.5 million in contributions for his winning 2010 campaign against Republican James “Duke” Aiona. He has another fundraiser scheduled for June 21 to coincide with his birthday.

Comparing the cash holdings of all candidates would be nearly impossible using reports maintained on the state Campaign Spending Commission‘s site. Campaign finance reports are not searchable, and the information contained in a report isn’t cumulative across an election.

Most of the data for this analysis came from a searchable online database recently launched by Jared Kuroiwa. He wrote code that pulls data from the commission’s site and spills it into his site. Civil Beat double-checked his totals directly with campaign finance reports.

For some perspective on Hee, Kim and Green’s contributions: In the 2010 elections, winning Senate candidates raised an average $86,707 for their campaigns. The average losing Senate candidate raised $14,404 that year.

Hee was reelected to his Senate seat — representing Kahuku to Kaneohe — in the 2008 elections. Hee raised $291,875 for that election and spent a total of $130,719.

Kim was reelected in 2010 to her seat that represents Moanalua to Halawa Valley. That election year she spent $128,184 and raised $146,443.

Green — who represents Milolii to Waimea on the Big Island — was reelected to the Senate in 2008. His campaign raised $198,941 for that election and spent $116,770.

Carlisle won a special election in 2010 to fill out the final two years of Mufi Hannemann‘s term. Hannemann resigned to run for governor. Carlisle’s campaign raised $598,107 for the 2010 election, and spent $521,586.

Arakawa, who served as Maui’s mayor from 2002 to 2006, was reelected to his old job in the 2010 election. His campaign raised $387,427 and spent $310,786.

]]>Gov. Neil Abercrombie proclaimed Hawaii was “entering the 21st century” with the hiring of Sonny Bhagowalia as the state’s first chief information officer last summer.

Now, just shy of Bhagowalia’s first year on the job, a highly anticipated strategic plan admits that the state isn’t quite there yet.

“Hawaii is not positioned to capitalize on the promise of the 21st century information age…Hawaii is mired in ineffective and inefficient paper-based, manual business processes with old technology,” according to the strategic plan released Tuesday by the Office of Information Management and Technology.

While admitting Hawaii is 20 to 30 years behind when compared with other states, Bhagowalia strikes a hopeful tone, saying that he is confident the state can “leap frog” ahead — with help from the public.

His office has posted the 35-page draft plan online and is seeking feedback from the community between now and June 1. The public is asked to chime in via an online forum and the office says it will incorporate feedback into a final plan to be published in July.

Bhagowalia has said putting the plan together will cost $1 million, which is being paid for using private grant money 1.

“We seek to ‘leap frog’ into the front by leveraging lessons learned, best practices and studying successful examples of business/technology transformation at the federal, state, local, tribal and industry level,” Bhagowalia wrote in the plan’s opening message. “We believe agility, openness/transparency, participation, collaboration and innovation will leap-frog us to the top.”

Among the first upgrades planned are having all financial reports available within five business days, digitizing unemployment benefit checks (currently, the state sends out paper checks) and helping more residents file their taxes online.

The plan defines four goals for the state’s transformation strategy:

All aspects of the state’s administrative operational functions and services are fully integrated in an optimum manner and are accessible to all stakeholders as needed when needed.

The state is nationally recognized as a citizen- and business-friendly environment due to the efficiency and effectiveness of State government in managing and securely sharing information in the desirable form and format.

The Executive Branch is recognized by its internal stakeholders for its efficiency and effectiveness and is recognized outside the state as a best practice.

The state’s processes are streamlined in order to ensure services are delivered to all stakeholders in the most efficient and effective manner and process streamlining will not be just a one-time activity, but will be performed continuously.

A large chunk of the plan received financial backing from lawmakers this session. Legislators budgeted $15 million within the fiscal 2013 capital improvements budget for “development and implementation of an integrated financial management system for the state.”

Achieving the overall plan to overhaul the state’s IT infrastructure will be done in five phases over 10 years.

But anyone who has registered has found the process doesn’t live up to its motto.

Now, Hawaii might finally be able to make it easier to register — and tackle its dismal voter turnout numbers at the same time.

The Office of Elections is set to get a major upgrade to its voter registration process under a bill just passed by state lawmakers.

The measure, which still requires final approval from Gov. Neil Abercrombie, calls for $500,000 for the elections office to design an online voter registration system. The system would need to be in place for the 2016 elections.

Currently, residents have to either go down to a county office and fill out registration forms in person or print them out from the elections website and mail them in. The forms are available online, but still have to be sent in along with copies of proof of residency such as a photo ID or utility bill.

“Hawaii has been consistently at or near the bottom of all 50 states in voter turnout, and every effort should be made to encourage eligible citizens to participate,” Common Cause Hawaii testified in support of House Bill 1755. “The numbers from the 2010 General Election show that there an estimated 961,213 eligible voters in Hawaii, but only 690,748 registered voters. … Online voter registration can make participation in our democratic process more accessible and convenient.”

The governor’s spokeswoman has said the governor supports the concept of the measure, noting that he vetoed the bill last year because it was an unfunded mandate.

In his veto message to lawmakers, Abercrombie said “the estimated cost of implementation is $2.5 million and no funding was provided in the bill. Electronic voter registration can be addressed as the state moves to assess and overhaul the state’s technology systems.”

Hawaii County Clerk Jamae Kawauchi also wrote in support: “The application to register to vote electronically brings forward the new electronic/youth generation to voting, in lieu of the traditional application by mail or in person.”

Common Cause Hawaii noted the potential for cost savings with an online voter registration system, which it estimates 10 to 12 other states already maintain.

The organization cited a 2010 study by the Pew Center on the States showing that in Arizona, it costs an average 3 cents to process an online application compared to an average 83 cents per paper application.

The study found Washington state saves 25 cents for each application that comes through online instead of manually. The state also estimated that residents saved about $200,000 in postage by not having to mail in voter registrations. (See the full study here).

]]>How Abercrombie Fared at the 2012 Legislaturehttps://www.civilbeat.org/2012/05/15755-how-abercrombie-fared-at-the-2012-legislature/
Fri, 04 May 2012 02:41:08 +0000From righting the canoe to investing in the future, a look at the governor's successes.

]]>If last year’s theme was “righting the canoe,” this year’s theme is all about investing in the economy and the future.

With Gov. Neil Abercrombie‘s symbolic canoe no longer in jeopardy of capsizing, he’s eased up on his mantra that we all need to paddle.

His new investment strategy is at the forefront of an $11 billion operating budget and $3 billion capital projects budget lawmakers have approved. It’s also evident in the governor’s legislative push for a “Justice Reinvestment” plan and new health programs for kupuna and keiki — initiatives lawmakers also agreed to.

At the close of legislative session Thursday, the governor’s office said such “investments will shape Hawaii’s future in critical areas including elderly care, early childhood education, environment and energy.”

“We can all be proud of the successes that were achieved by the administration and the Legislature working in a spirit of cooperation and commitment to the public good,” Abercrombie said in a statement. “We set out to invest now for the future and I believe that’s exactly what we have accomplished.”

The tone is a far cry from last year, when the governor saw considerable pushback for some controversial proposals, most notably bills that would have taxed pension income and eliminated Medicare Part B reimbursements for public retirees to generate extra cash.

Some notable differences this time around: Abercrombie testified in-person on several of his bills. He took a front-row seat at after-hours conference committee negotiations on the state budget. His staff and advisers — former state lawmakers Blake Oshiro and Kate Stanley, legislative liaison Debbie Shimizu and Chief of Staff Bruce Coppa — had a constant presence at the Capitol, in hearings and conference committees.

The full-court press seemed to pay off. Here’s a look at how some of the governor’s initiatives fared.

Budget

Using the governor’s proposed budget as a blueprint, lawmakers agreed to a larger budget than Abercrombie requested. These were some of his requests that lawmakers agreed to:

They budgeted $15 million for the state’s chief information officer to modernize outdated information technology infrastructure. The CIO’s Office of Information Management and Technology is a big part of the governor’s New Day initiatives.

The budget also includes $5 million for the administration’s Watershed Protection initiative.

State Budget Chief Kalbert Young has said maintaining healthy reserves is a key standard for bond-rating agencies.

But lawmakers did not fund the governor’s plan to replenish the state’s Rainy Day and Hurricane Relief reserves. Some of that money was instead diverted toward social services.

While they didn’t listen to Young on that front, some legislators did credit him for enabling additional bond-financed capital projects to be worked into the capital improvements side of the budget. Young oversaw a successful bond sale late last year that helped restructure the state’s debt profile via refinancing and paying down debt. The move allows the state to take on the additional debt called for in the $3 billion CIP budget.

The budget also doesn’t include the $1.4 million the governor had wanted for the state’s Broadband Initiative.

Interisland Undersea Cable

After stalling, the controversial undersea cable bill made a comeback during the final days of the session and passed both chambers.

The latest version would not require an undersea transmission cable be built between the islands, nor fast-track a project or allow for relaxed environmental regulations.

The measure would set up a regulatory framework for an undersea electric transmission cable if one is built. The project would become a regulated utility under the Public Utilities Commission.

OHA Land Deal

Earlier in the session, Abercrombie enacted historic legislation that settles a $200 million tab from the state to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

The OHA deal was seen as a victory for the governor, who was able to do what his predecessors were not: resolve a 30-year-old unresolved claim to income and proceeds from ceded lands.

Justice Reinvestment

Two of the administration’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative bills passed. The measures — Senate Bill 2776 and House Bill 2515 — aim to make the state’s criminal justice system more efficient and improve accountability, according to the governor’s office.

“This is not an early release program, but an opportunity for Hawaii to move forward in its efforts to bring back the 1,700 inmates housed on the mainland,” Sen. Will Espero said Thursday on the floor in support of SB 2776.

“Most importantly, these initiatives increase public safety through evidence-based policy models proven in 14 other states that reduce recidivism and invest savings back into community programs and supervision,” his office said in a statement.

Kupuna, Keiki

Legislators funded $1.4 million to create aging and disability resource centers in each county to streamline access to long-term supports and services for older adults with disabilities and family caregivers.

The governor’s soda tax proposal fizzled in the 2011 session, but lawmakers this year agreed to fund an initiative for early childhood health. The measure would set up a task force for the prevention of childhood obesity and collect and analyze Hawaii-specific early childhood obesity data, among other things.

The Legislature appropriated $300,000 for the Early Childhood Education goal to develop and implement a comprehensive early childhood system and a phased plan for a public-private preschool program for 4-year-olds.